Controversial director creates controversial film and is surprised when no one goes
I found this (almost) humorous:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/nationa...der050106.html
MarcUK and segovius will appreciate this (additional) example of the "fundie" conspiracy to take over the world (or whatever they are doing).
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/nationa...der050106.html
MarcUK and segovius will appreciate this (additional) example of the "fundie" conspiracy to take over the world (or whatever they are doing).
Comments
Oliver Stone is a GOD® and anything he creates is celluloid gold!
I heard it was slow . . . I like films that give themselves real time to develop . . . .
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I found this (almost) humorous:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/nationa...der050106.html
MarcUK and segovius will appreciate this (additional) example of the "fundie" conspiracy to take over the world (or whatever they are doing).
do you think fundies will voluntarily shut up, or is it their raison d'etre to coerce as many people as possible to their belief?
Is it the fundies who'se agenda is to get as many of their fellows into Class boardrooms?
Is it the fundies who only appoint fellow fundies to government bodies.?
Is it the fundies who build museums to promote known lies to the masses?
Is it the fundies who stand on street corners with picket boards proclaiming "Gays will burn in hell",
or is it the educated, tolerant, naturalists?
Um... so what's your point?
Originally posted by segovius
And another thing - this title is a classic example of the pernicious attitude that is seeping through all strata of society and will gradually and inevitably infect us all with its rabid cancerous pestilence.
Controversial film ??????
It's controversial because it tells the truth - ie Alexander was gay or bi or whatever - who cares ?
Only the fundies.
They care so much that the truth becomes 'controversial'. And then lies become truth.
Perhaps Mr Stone should have portrayed Alexander as a Bible-bashing God-botherer who spread the 'Good News' throughout his vast domains by means of the sword of righteousness and a few judicious witch-burnings and a divinely approved Star Chamber - oh wait.....that's scheduled for the 'real world', we're talking about entertainment. My bad...
Well...
a) I haven't seen the film (and don't care to)...but not for any of the reasons here...just not my type of film I guess
b) I don't give a crap whether Alexander was gay, bi, whatever. Don't care one bit. Don't even care what the film depicts.
c) To know the history Oliver Stone and not admit that he is a controversial director who (more often than not) produces films that have controversial content is simply naive (or stupid).
d) I've heard it was just a bad film...but it couldn't possibly be that reason that no one went to see it. It must be the "fundie" conspiracy.
Originally posted by segovius
c) I didn't question the controversial director attribution in your title, it was the controversial film I questioned.
So, what's controversial about it then ?
"who (more often than not) produces films that have controversial content"
In terms of what was controversial? Well I know now...but that isn't really the point I am making. Oliver Stone is known (generally) to make controversial films. This is nothing new. Sometimes controversy brings people to the ticket booth. Sometimes it keeps them away. Sometimes people don't really care and they choose other films becuase...well they do.
The real point was how funny it was that he (and perhaps others) jumped to the assumption that the "fundies" are the ones that rained on his parade. Maybe he just made a bad movie and is looking for a scapegoat...and who better than the most popular "whipping boy" today...Christians?
Originally posted by segovius
d) How did they know it was a 'bad film' if they didn't go to see it ?
I said that I haven't seen the film, so I don't know that it is a bad film (to me), but have heard from others that it just wasn't that good of a film. So all the more reason to skip it (as I said before...hadn't planned to see it anyway...so this is really moot as it applies to me personally).
originally posted by segovious
c) I didn't question the controversial director attribution in your title, it was the controversial film I questioned.
So, what's controversial about it then ?
Are you baiting? If an action, object or person causes controversy (A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.), is it not controversial.
Sorry, semantics. But it often comes down to that here.
Not that I disagree with Stone's portrayal of Alexander, but it caused controversy, hence it is controversial.
Anyway, whether that portion was accurate or not shouldn't have being the motivating factor for it's success. Was it a good movie? I don't know, nothing has compelled me to go see it.
As for the paraphrase from Farrell's friend about it being no Gladiator? Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon was robbed.
BTW, this was my same argument for supporting Faranheit 9/11. It's a movie, not journalism.
Originally posted by segovius
....Muslims ?
Yes, they are a popular "whipping boy" too. Though they weren't the one Stone invoke in this case.
Originally posted by segovius
My neighbour is a member of the KKK. Last week a black man, Mr Smith, moved into our street.
Since then my neighbour has been graffiti-ing the house of the controversial Mr Smith.
What is your point here?
That your KKK neighbor (appears to be) committing property crimes in an effort to intimidate your black neighbor?
originally posted by segovious
Since then my neighbour has been graffiti-ing the house of the controversial Mr Smith.
Semantics again. But yes, race unfortunately is controversial. So is vandalism. But it's not illegal to be black, vandalism is.
Unfortunately bigotry exists, I know, I still have to wipe spit off my face every now and then.
Originally posted by segovius
d) How did they know it was a 'bad film' if they didn't go to see it ?
Well, I caught the special on E! about the movie- it had tons of clips, and made me decide that it was best seen as a two dollar rental. Between Jared Leto wearing more eyeliner than Elizabeth Taylor in "Cleopatra" and Angelina Jolie sounding like she should be plwotteeng trubble for Moose and Sqwurrull, it looked pretty dire: like "Showgirls" without the laughs.
That's why I passed it up, anyway.
originally posted by segovious
So you are 'controversial' too.
Why, yes I am. Most often for my behaviour, but I like to think of myself as a behavioral reaction catalyst for other's insecurities.
As for the spitter? I wish I could say that was the worst done to me for my different ethnic background. Many couldn't even tell you what race I am. Funny thing is that it mostly happens from a moving vehicle, most bigots are cowards.
originally posted by segovious
I guess it all hangs on whether Jolie wears a skimpy outfit.
C'mon, let's be honest. We both know we'd prefer no outfit.
Originally posted by segovius
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Cute but irrelevant.
Originally posted by segovius
But that's my point. I find it depressing to have to spell it out but what the hell - obviously it's necessary:
There is nothing controversial about being gay.
There is nothing controversial about belonging to a specific ethnic grouping.
These things become controversial when faced with bigotry if - and only if - that bigotry is given equal weight (which of course is what the bigots always lobby for, consciously or unconsciously).
I don't think the controversy was that he was gay (or bisexual)...but that he was gay (or bisexual). Important to put the right emphasis on the right syllable here.
(As I hear it) the controversy was about whether Alexander was gay or not (and the truthfulness of the claim). Not "gayness" in general. BTW...it wasn't just Christians (I don't even know if THEY were the primary complainers)...but also Greeks.
And finally, let's face it, Oliver Stone has some trouble with the truth in his films, and though films are supposed to be entertainment...when you promote a film as biopic-ish...then some scrutiny of its factual correctness ought to be expected.
Much like the Fahrenheit 9/11 example mentioned earlier...Fahrenheit 9/11 being called a "documentary" is just plain silly (if not insulting to the genre).
Originally posted by segovius
That's a bit rich - didn't the Greeks invent it ?
(As I understand it) they were complaining as Greeks...(BTW...not all Greeks are Christians are they?)...much like we Americans might be pissed off if some foreign (to the U.S.) filmmaker made some film that made a (possibly) false and controversial depiction of some revered leader. I don't claim this is rational behvior...it just is.
NOTE: I'm not supporting or denouncing the complaints of the film. My whole point in the thread was the fact that it didn't seem to occur to the filmmaker that the reason the film did poorly is (possibly) not due to the "fundies" but rather that it (possibly) was just not a good movie.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4154071.stm
Just seen on TV, 15000 complaints received, protestors picketting Broadcasting House, why, because the BBC are about to air a comedy that pokes a bit of fun at Jesus. Boo-Hoo.
It's clear that fundies only accept free speech and artistic expression when it's them doing the preaching,
just like the Sikhs trashing a theatre when there was a play that didn't depict them in beautiful light, what now fundies? trash the BBC because you don't like the program?.
It's about time you accepted differing opinions as equally valid, and started exercising tolerance of free speech and artistic expression - that you so very much depend on.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Just seen on TV, 15000 complaints received, protestors picketting Broadcasting House, why, because the BBC are about to air a comedy that pokes a bit of fun at Jesus. Boo-Hoo.
It's clear that fundies only accept free speech and artistic expression when it's them doing the preaching,
So let me see if I have this right...the program you refer to is okay...it is freedom of expression...but protesting it isn't?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So let me see if I have this right...the program you refer to is okay...it is freedom of expression...but protesting it isn't?
Protesting is OK,
what needs to be adressed is why they feel the need to protest in order to censor, when others are exercising the the same rights to freedom of expression.